Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive3

Comment
Someone cut my comment and put part of it in another section. Do not do this. It is a violation of Wikietiquette. Moreover, I wrote the comment I wrote to make the points I wanted to make, together. You do not have to agree withe them. You do not have to like them. But to separate one part from another is to change them, and you cannot do that. Do not change what I wrote when I am expressing my own view. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  21:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit war
Instead of continuing this edit war why don't we reach (and discuss!) a compromise? I think the main article should not be used for discussion but should state the facts and opinions in a pro/con kind of style, also linking to uses of the phrase in articles. The talk page can then be used to discuss these opinions.

I see good faith throughout the edits and think that this suggestion would be a good solution for all involved. violet/riga (t) 21:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea. Main page for summary of the arguments and the talk page for discussion. zen master    T  21:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * When I put my comment on the main article page, it was because someone had created the article page specifically for discussion. I have no objection to changing that, and moving all discussion to this page.  Wherever my comment goes, though, it should not be altered by someone else. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If your comment is inside the pro argument summary section then it's out of place isn't it? zen master   T  22:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that the discussion is on the main page is my fault, as I set it up that way. My thinking was that we could use the main page until we had enough material to summarize and then move the talk here. But I agree with violetriga, zen master, and Slrubenstein that it might be best to move the discussion here now. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * So should we implement this plan? (main page a short summary of the positions, talk page for discussion) zen master    T  22:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Approach
I personally think that someone should refactor the project page to set forth the controversy and the arguments on all sides. Turning the project page into an argument is not going to help us reach consensus.

I am willing to volunteer to do this, either this evening or next evening. I am "on the fence" on the question at issue, but I think a consensus resolution is important to Wikipedia and would like to get this resolved as quickly as we can without stomping on anyone's opinion.

What I think would be useful are proposed guidelines on when to use and when not to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the title of an article. Please do NOT edit anyone else's proposed guidelines; if you wish to comment on, endorse, or oppose someone's proposal, please add a comment subsection with your comments and/or propose your own guidelines in a separate section. I would ask that statements of support or opposition, and the proposals themselves, have reasoning backing them, so that everyone can understand the points of view involved. Meanwhile, I'll make an effort to refactor the project page and maybe throw out some synthesized suggestions as this goes along. Kelly Martin 22:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Total waste of time
This is not a constructive dialog seeking a compromies, it is a war of attrition being waged by Obstructionist POV warriors who want to push the idea that there is no such thing as the concept "conspiracy theory." No books, no essays, apparently it is a plot concocted by some secret power that they refuse to name. Enough. Go to a vote. The attempt to find a fair and balanced compromise for several pages in need of editing has been stalled for two months now by this charade. Go to a vote. The evidence is on the main page. Go to a vote. --Cberlet 00:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please cite examples of obstructionism, POV warriorism and "conspiracy theory" concept denial from the discussion? The issue as I brought it up is simply fixing non-neutral titles. zen master    T  00:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think most people reading the main page and checking out your attempts to reframe the discussion--even editng other people's text--and your refusal to actually have a discussion but merely repeat the same point over and over and over and over and over...will reach a different conclusion. I have withdrawn my attempt at a compromise. I look forward to a vote one way or another. This has been a disheartening experience. Please leave me out of it in the future. I will vote when the time comes. Otherwise I think it is a huge waste of time.--Cberlet 00:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide citations for your accusations? How have I reframed the discussion? Either "conspiracy theory" is POV in a title or it isn't. zen master   T  00:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And please do not reinsert the duplicative text. I have withdrawn the compromise titles. As "evidence" it can be displayed as a diff. it has no place on the main page anymore.--Cberlet 00:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I specifically added your original debate on this issue to this article for a reason, that reason remains. zen master   T  00:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a project page. I withdrew my set of compromise offers. If they are needed for reference they exist in the history. Who appointed you king of this discussion and this set of pages?  I missed the news.--Cberlet 00:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidently, in chess this is called sacrificing the queen.   :-)  --Cberlet 00:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I so enjoy gambits. So, zen-master, you just reverted me three times in a row. 3RR. Going to Disney World? Why should you not be suspended for the standard vacation?--Cberlet 00:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, the 3RR limits a person to 3 reverts per item per day. Zen was within his rights. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:03, 2005 May 5 (UTC)


 * Fish in a barrel. My gambit was to smoke out the sockpuppet. Zing! Thanks. You guys really don't play chess, do you?--Cberlet 01:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: "Fish in a barrel. My gambit was to smoke out the sockpuppet. Zing! Thanks.": What are you talking about, Cberlet? Re: chess: I happen to be a pretty decent Chess player, I've beaten a Master before.  (and I'm a 10 kyu Go player, as well) But what does Chess have anything to do with this discussion?  This discussion is not a contest between persons. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:14, 2005 May 5 (UTC)


 * I'm going to do some reading. Finish the DaVinci Code. Keep me in the same mindset until I return.--Cberlet 01:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to comment on the removal of this material. Normally, editors are not allowed to remove material from a project page or article simply because they have written it. However, editors are allowed to remove their own comments from talk pages, as I understand it, and as this was originally written on a talk page, Cberlet is probably within his rights to delete it. Having said that, my opinion is that it's not helpful to delete it, though Cberlet may want to remove his signature if he no longer agrees with what's written. Alternatively, zen master and Kevin could rewrite it, paraphrasing, so that the material becomes your own. I couldn't quite understand the disagreement about the different versions. Let me know if that's relevant, because I may have missed the point here. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * My point here has been to show that there is a tag team of editors who are not interested in actual compromise. Evidence includes Kevin_baas stepping in to help out zen-master from a 3RR rule violation; and then Kevin_baas just reverted an edit I made without reading it. The text I had removed was put back into the text in the version I edited--thus the reversion was not needed. It was made without reading my edit. Kevin_baas simply assumed I had removed the material that zen-master was reverting back in. Actually, I jugled it a bit, but it was there. See this diff --Cberlet 01:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, now there is a big block of duplicate text...dare I fix it?--Cberlet 01:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit to being totally confused about why material is being deleted, moved, and repeated. Chip, can I ask: is there material you want taken off the page, and if so, why? Yes, please do fix the repetition at least. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to SlimVirgin above, basically it comes down to tone and the change in tone, Cberlet's original post portrayed me as a "lone wolf" POV pusher that did not have any support for my non-neutral title criticism. Cberlet seemingly was subtly attacking me personaly and portraying the issue as lacking any support, I am basically trying to prevent such original claims from being swept under the rug. Contrast cberlet's original section with the subsequent section, the subsequent section gives Cberlet all the appearances of being neutral (after the fact). There is no mention of his uncited earlier subtle claims. This and some of my other points are only relevant against Cberlet's original post, it's evidence, perhaps it should be blockquoted? Or more importantly perhaps we should all just get back to discussing the original issue? I support Kelly Martin's plan for organizing the main page as a summary of the arguments/positions and this talk page for debate and discussion. zen master   T  01:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh thanks, that's clearer. Chip is within his rights to remove anything that might look like a personal attack, whether he wrote it or not. If he's leaving up a more neutral version, or more neutral tone, that's a good thing. There's nothing to stop you from making a note on the page that a personal attack was removed, but I'd advise against it, as it keeps the thing going. Far better, as you say zen master, to concentrate on the topic. I also think Kelly Martin's offer to reorganize the page would be a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * He can remove it even if it was I that created the section that contained his original post? How should we go about morphing these two pages into the Kelly Martin proposal?  zen master    T  01:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks can be removed, and if Chip has written something that he feels came close to one and wants to remove it, that's a good thing, because it makes the page more reasonable looking. ;-) I don't have time right now to look at the refactoring issue, but I suppose it would be good to sum up the debate so far for the project page, and then move the discussion here. SlimVirgin (talk)  01:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not just personal attacks but an initial attempt to completely mischaracterize my position and mischaracterize the debate so any third parties that venture here and who don't have much time to really think about the issue are convinced (tricked perhaps) into thinking his position is the correct one (by claiming there is no support for my position among other subtle claims). Or are you saying evidence of someone "not playing fair" is only relevant on an arbitration page?  I will further note that cberlet titled this talk page section as "A total waste of time".  I agree we should move the historic debate here and succinctly summarize the different positions on this issue there while continuing the debate here.  Should someone neutral do it or can/should I?  zen master    T  02:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I revised the material that was posted on this page originally because I thought it would be nice to not have a bunch of contentious comments to start off a new discussion. I was seeking a neutral tone, as an examination of the early page history clearly demonstrates: I say "Let's start over and debate these issues with a mind to finding a constructive compromise." I cut out all the comments after the original title compromise proposal.
 * The difference between a personal attack and a criticism of process is a vital difference here on Wiki. Saying an idea is stupid is a personal attack. Saying someone is not seriously trying to find a constructive compromise is a process criticism. For two months I have tried to find a compromise position in this matter. For two months others have come up with creative suggestions and been ready to agree to a compromise. There are only a tiny handful of people who refuse to budge one iota off their original position--zen-master and his handful of allies. Some recent posts from this band of editors suggest that I am now part of some sinister conspiracy. The irony of trying to find a compromise on a question of language about "conspiracy theories" -- and to be charged with being part of a conspiracy -- is too much for me. I think I have clearly demonstrated in the past few hours that at last two editors have shown a lack of serious intent to compromise and to play fair. Enough paranoia.
 * I will now go onto the page and remove the duplicated paragraphs, leaving the one Zen-master seems to think shows I am part of a plot. Fine.  He can have it.  There is no need to have part of the section twice.  If he would like to post a long essay about my sinister and duplicitous nature, that's fine. He can go ahead. I am going to go and read a book. If the material I object to is still there tomorrow, I will post a note that it remains posted over my objections.  That is my perogative, and I do not want others to delete me comments. I will protest. --Cberlet 02:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you interested in continuing debate on the original issue further? You did label this section as "A total waste of time"?  Could you clean that up as well?  Have you been following Jayjg, BrandonYusufToropov and to a lesser extent my recent debate from today in the article?  Brandon pointed out Jayjg used the phrase "conspiracy theory" to discredit, since it can be used to discredit that should preclude it's use in a title shouldn't it (if neutrality is the goal)?  zen master    T  02:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Brandon made that claim, which is something else entirely. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Presumably you claim you used the phrase "that's conspiracy theory thinking" as a compliment? BrandonYusufToropov 18:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please understand that I do not believe you are acting in an appropriate manner. I have tried not to say this outright, but you keep insisting on pretending that your actions are in the spirit of compromise. I see no evidence that this is true. The concept of passive-aggressive comes to mind.  Your actions on these pages alone demonstrate an aggressive and patronizing approach.  You have edited other editors' text, seized control of the page, and then you pour on the sugary prose of wounded passivity. I am trying to clean this up. I am criticizing your process. I am suggesting that there is no point in continuing wasting time actually pretending this is a serious attempt to have a discussion. Just like the seige of Leningrad was not a serious attempt at seeking peace. After 900 days we will still be here, and you will not have budged an inch. What's the point? You are relentless. And your buddy Kevin_baas just reverted me without even reading the text which contained the material you wanted included. Where is the integrity in that?  Where is the integrity in your actions? Please feel free to continue on without me. Other than waiting to add a note about material being posted over my objections (up to you) I will wait for the vote.--Cberlet 02:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Brilliant summary, and logical conclusion. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you interested in continuing discussion on the core title neutraily issue? Again, would you be so kind as to clean up the title of this section "total waste of time"?  Or are you saying you are done with discussion?  Is the fact that "conspiracy theory" is used to discredit a subject relevant to this discussion?  What did you think of Mirror Vax's point about "not using loaded words"?  Do you support moving the main page's discussion here, keeping just a succinct summary of the positions there on the main page, and then only debating here on the talk page?  zen master    T  02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen so much discussion over not having a discussion in my life. --kizzle 21:00, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

A new beginning
I have completed the proposed reformating, someone needs to come up wit the "Pro" argument on the main page again. I am open to suggestions on how to modify the summaries or the format further. What do people think? zen master   T  03:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Very nice, but I would like to consider revising so as to allow the title Conspiracy theory itself to remain unchanged. (And prohibiting the words "conspiracy theory" from other article titles as POV.) What do you think? BrandonYusufToropov 18:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There was some confusion on that, I never intended to apply it to generic Conspiracy theory articles. I stated in the proposal that it is applicable "only when conspiracy theory etc are used to describe another subject". zen master   T  18:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I will make the edit. BrandonYusufToropov

Major flaw with "keep" argument presented on project page
It deserves to be an article unto itself -- one that argues (rightly or wrongly) about what a conspiracy theory is.

It has nothing to do, as far as I can see, with how anyone actually, currently uses the term conspiracy theory when speaking or reading in the real world. Instead, it espouses a thesis-like argument for what we should consider a conspiracy theory to be.

What does the definition proposed have to do with whether or not the term should show up in a WP headline?

The question is whether the words conspiracy theory are pejorative in actual use by the vast majority of real human beings who have no interest in academic theories. I say they are.

Because:


 * When people say a certain idea is "only a conspiracy theory"...


 * ... or belittle someone else by saying, "That's conspiracy theory thinking"...


 * ... they probably aren't doing so because they agree with the points this article makes about epistemology.


 * To the contrary. They are doing so, I maintain, because they are eager to dismiss or discredit the idea in question.


 * And whether or not that intention is formulated clearly enough for them to recognize it on a conscious level, the pejorative character remains.


 * Representative citations of "conspiracy theory" as a marker for "condition contrary to fact, put forward by dubious sources" WHICH IS NOW THE PRACTICAL, REAL-WORLD MEANING OF THIS TERM:


 * * "Here, courtesy of Turn Left you can come up with a Wacko Right Wing Conspiracy Theory of your very own."


 * http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/conspiracy.html


 * * "Want to come up with your own conspiracy theory about Bush? Don't let Al Franken, Michael Moore, and MoveOn.org have all the fun! Use this handy George W. Bush Conspiracy Theory Generator to come up with your own conspiracy theory!"


 * http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php


 * * "Those who rejected the resurrection of Messiah came up with a Conspiracy Theory to explain the empty tomb and His many appearances."


 * http://www.acts17-11.com/conspire.html


 * "...an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg."


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm

'Are these writers endorsing a specific definition of the term conspiracy theory'' involving closed systems and epistemological distinctions?

Or are they broadcasting to their readers the unspoken message, "I do not believe in the idea I am about to reference, and neither should you, because it is not trustworthy"? BrandonYusufToropov 16:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the keep summary is precisely how people use the term, and if conspiracy theories are seen to be inherently perjorative, it's for the reasons outlined in that description, namely that conspiracy theories don't conform to the usual rules of evidence; that they are matters of ideology, not fact; that nothing, it seems, is able to convince their adherents that they're wrong; that the goalposts keep shifting in order to neutralize or incorporate evidence that contradicts the theory. This is a descriptive term, not simply an insult. Paedophile is a descriptive term, though it also has negative connotations because people don't like paedophiles, but ought that to mean we're not allowed to use that word in Wikipedia? In the same way, "conspiracy theory" is a descriptive term, and if it has negative connotations, it's because most people don't respect conspiracy theories. The important thing is to make sure that stories included in conspiracy-theory pages really are conspiracy theories, and not simply alternative theories, or controversies. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is a descriptive term. So is insanity and paranoia. I'm not saying WP should not have titles that are descriptive. I am saying that the descriptive terms we use in titles should not manifest POV towards the content.


 * For instance, this particular descriptive term should not be applied to the article currently bearing it as a predudicial, neon-brilliant "Don't take any of the content on this page seriously" sign, namely 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. BrandonYusufToropov 18:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If this whole discussion and the page moves are happening because you don't want the 9/11 Bush theory to be called a conspiracy theory, then with respect, I feel you might be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, though I accept you don't intend to do that. What you should do instead is argue on that talk page that the 9/11 Bush controversy isn't an example of a conspiracy theory.


 * I'd also say that in my view it bears all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. The issue about certain people being warned off certain flights is one of the classic signs: members of the ruling elite or people linked to the powerful conspirators are always given warnings, though no evidence is ever turned up that either (a) they really were warned, and (b) that the warnings were relevant and related to what subsequently happened. Far from weakening the theory, the absence of evidence is seen as strongly indicating the presence of a cover-up. David Icke interprets George Bush's and the British royal family's failure to sue him for libel as evidence that they really are, as he claims, giant lizards. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Relax. I used it as an example. That's okay, right? If you want to obsess about it, though, feel free. The point is that the trick of using the title, there or elsewhere, to precondition the reader before he/she actually gets to any text is deeply biased, and it's not exactly using simplicity as our guide.
 * If you personally have reasons to believe that a given article is the result of a conspiracy theory, argue for a paragraph to that effect in the body of the text, and defend your case. Let the reader make the call. BrandonYusufToropov 19:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Third branch?
The third argument on the main page is very similar to the "Against" argument, except that it proposes to not rename the Conspiracy theory article. However, I'm not sure that anyone is actually in favor of renaming this particular article. I propose that this third branch be deleted or merged. Carbonite | Talk 17:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I felt that that wasn't clear in the second alternative offered on the main page. If the proponents do not intend to include Conspiracy theory itself within the ambit of their "ban" of the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory", they should state so. I also think it's important to reference back to WP:NPOV to ground this policy in existing, well-defined Wikipedia policy. In my opinion, every Wikipedia policy should be clearly related back to one of the three policies in WP:TRI, and I don't see the first policy proposal relating back WP policy at all and the second one does not do so clearly. Kelly Martin 18:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * If nobody votes for it, then it will disappear on its own; there's no need to force decisions before people have even had a chance to evaluate the options. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term conspiracy theory itself should be left intact as a separate article by that title (perhaps incorporating much of the text from option #1) and that editors should be disouraged from linking to it to disparage articles with which they disagree. BrandonYusufToropov

The third branch should be merged into the second branch, I apologize for not being clear enough that my proposal is not applicable to generic Conspiracy theory titled articles but I do state in the second proposal that it only applies when "conspiracy theory etc are used to describe another article". So who is going to merge 3 into 2? If anyone has any other complaints/criticisms/improvements to the second section feel free to make them. zen master   T  18:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment(2)
It is my impression that the first proposal does not describe a policy on when the phrase conspiracy theory can be used in a Wikipedia article without violating WP:NPOV. Would the proponents of this proposed policy please revise their proposal so that it describes an editorial policy? At the moment it appears to be an essay on conspiracy theories, which might be useful as an addition to Conspiracy theory but is not of any value as an editorial policy. Kelly Martin 18:19, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kelly Martin's points here, are there any keep as is folks that are going to address them? zen master    T  18:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Same here. BrandonYusufToropov 18:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Fourth proposal
I've added a fourth proposal in which I am attempting to capture the thoughts that SlimVirgin has put forth on the talk page. Please make suggestions as to how this might more accurately represent this point of view, or tell me if I'm totally off base here.

Also, I would remind participants not to edit proposals that you didn't propose without the consent of the proponents of that proposal. Do not delete a proposal until it is clear that nobody is supporting it. I would encourage people to endorse (by signature) whichever proposal (or proposals) they support on the project page so that it is easier for people to gauge which proposals have support and which don't. Kelly Martin 19:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with the idea that it's not a conspiracy theory if the proponents are willing to admit that it might be incorrect is that the proponents are always willing to admit, in theory, that it might be incorrect. In fact, they regularly challenge you to prove them wrong, they insist they'd loved to be proven wrong.  It's just that whenever evidence is presented proving them wrong, it turns out never to be good enough. Jayjg (talk)  21:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

There should only be two proposals
Why the doubling of proposals? I think there should only be a rename proposal and then an argument on why that proposal might not be a good idea, what do people think? I think us pro rename folks need to work on consensus amongst ourselves first. zen master   T  19:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe this suggestion misframes this discussion as being merely about the names of a handful of articles, the names of which some of the participants in this debate find objectionable. This discussion is, or should be, about Wikipedia editorial policy, and then secondarily about its application to the articles in question.  I also think this suggestion may tend to lead toward factionalism, which is probably not a good thing.  Kelly Martin 20:03, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * We first have to establish whether "conspiracy theory" as an adjective is pejorative or NPOV and ok. That will determine editorial policy.  Every wikipedia user should find lack of neutrality in a title objectionable, shouldn't they?  Article content belongs inside the article, not in the title. zen master    T  20:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's about principles, not any individual article. "Conspiracy theory" in an article heading either is POV or it isn't. That is a discussion worth having, and having clear resolution on, so we can use it as a guideline. BrandonYusufToropov 20:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason to arbitrarily limit the discussion to only two proposals, nor is it necessary to have a guideline issued as the outcome. -Willmcw 20:19, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can the pro rename folks come up with their own proposal? zen master   T  20:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Haven't you done that already? Isn't that what your proposal (proposal 2) is? Kelly Martin 21:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The lack of a counter-proposal seems to be an indication that other editors feel no proposal is necessary, i.e. maintain the status quo. -Willmcw 20:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point, let the pro rename folks state their case, then the pro status quo folks can state their case. Having additional proposals confuses the issue. zen master    T  20:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that part of the strategy behind trying to force only two proposals is to create factions and to try to drive everyone into one faction or another. I believe that the "pro-rename" group is attempting to do this with the intention of painting the "anti-rename" faction as unreasonable.  They are objecting to ";middle ground" proposals because they know a middle ground proposal will draw strong support and defeat their goal.  This is almost always the case when someone tries to force a simple dialectic onto a situation where a flexible, case-sensitive analysis is more likely called for, and I think it's quite clearly the case here.  Kelly Martin 20:38, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly disagree with your analysis, but not as much as I disagree with your decision to appoint yourself arbiter of this discussion. How did that happen, exactly? BrandonYusufToropov 20:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Responding to Kelly Martin above, factionalization generally means increasing the number of opinions or groups, basically divide and conquer? I reject the notion that you are neutral or "middle ground" on this issue.  Brandon and I are trying to unite and work towards consensus. I have never used the phrase "anti-rename", I have said "pro keep" and "pro status quo".  Either "conspiracy theory" is NPOV or it is not, can we get back to debating the neutrality of the phrase itself?  zen master    T  20:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree.BrandonYusufToropov 20:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, KM. The issue may not lend itself to having a general policy, and should probably be decided on a case-by-case basis. I am astonished by the amount of time that is being consumed by this. We all might help the encyclopedia more by focusing our energies on creating and editing articles instead. -Willmcw 20:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Willmcw, that is your POV and you are entitled to it. However, shouldn't pro policy change folks have a say in how their proposal is structured and presented? I am the one that brought up the title criticism initially and in my opinion the two additional proposals Kelly Martin added are not conducive to achieving consensus on this issue (though her criticisms of Slim Virgin's proposal on the talk page is valid). zen master   T  21:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're not being stopped from presenting a proposal. However, what you seem to be trying to do is insist that your proposal is the only one which may be discussed.  Is your point of view the only one which may be heard today?  Kelly Martin 21:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is your proposal then it should be simply voted up or down, then no second, third, or fourth proposals are needed. If this is a discussion of how to title articles on Wikipedia, then all perspectives should be permitted. Choose your paradigm. -Willmcw 21:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I should remind Willmcw that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Kelly Martin 21:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. "Vote" wsa a poor choice of words. My point was that if ZM is making a proposal, then let's discuss that one proposal. On the other hand, if he is desiring a general discussion of the problem, then there should not be a limit on the number of proposals. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:32, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I will note here that only pro status quo users such as Willmcw support Kelly Martin's additional policy change arguments/proposals. zen master   T  21:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's too soon to say who supports them. They've only been there a few hours.  Give people a chance to read them.  Not everyone is on the Internet 24/7.  Kelly Martin 22:27, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a note of this to show that you are, after a detailed examination, not neutral. Despite the fact you reminded Willmcw that WP isn't a democracy you both are of the same POV that we should have multiple proposals.  I believe I have refuted the need for the bottom most proposal below (not logical) so I will kindly ask that it be removed or merged back into the first proposal. zen master    T  22:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Share this concern that Kelly is manifestly not neutral on this issue, and strongly support the proposal to merge or remove the bottom-most proposal. BrandonYusufToropov 23:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Question on bottom most proposal
How can something be a "true conspiracy theory"? Under which definition of "conspiracy theory"? Any theory that is literally about people conspiring is a "conspiracy theory", do all of them fit within this "true conspiracy theory" proposed policy criteria definition? Given the fact that "conspiracy theory" has multiple definitions isn't "true conspiracy theory" also ambiguous? If you are trying to connote that a subject is truly unworthy of being taken seriously the language used should be plain and simply stated shouldn't it? But that still wouldn't be appropriate for a title. I think titles should be 100% neutral, if an article is dubious the {dubious} template should be used to do any negative connotating of the content, which is not the job of a title. zen master   T  21:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe if you actually read the proposal you will find that "true conspiracy theory" is defined therein. Kelly Martin 21:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I read the proposal which is why I am asking. "Conspiracy theory" is already defined in the Conspiracy theory article, most notably it is in direct opposition to the definition in your bottom most proposal.  Please comment on this point.  You can't create a new "conspiracy theory" article title criteria that ignores the historic multiple definitions of the phrase, at best that leads to ambiguity, at worst to POV. zen master    T  21:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Related question, how can something be a "true X" if X has multiple definitions? To be clear shouldn't an article state that something is either a "true Y" or a "true Z" to avoid ambiguity (where Y and Z are the two definitions of X)? Basically this is stating things simply which is currently WP policy. Why use ambiguous words when you can just state things directly? zen master   T  22:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Unclear on implications
Could someone help me understand the implications of this vote? Would 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel become "Jews Caused 9/11"? Would the General Motors streetcar conspiracy become "General Motors Suppresses Street Cars"? What would be the alternate title for Columbine conspiracy theories?

As for "Do Wikipedia titles generally state conclusions about an article's content? Should they?" I agree that the "conspiracy theory" label implies a judgement, but Wikipedia is about judgements and negotiation over truth, with both a capital and small "t." NPOV is the result of these communal debates of each topic, which is why there is both a Nick Berg topic and a linked Nick Berg Conspiracies topic, rather than a single article that assigns equal probability to all causes of death. The Jews did not cause 9/11, GM did not suppress street cars, and the police did not conspire about the Columbine murders. These topics are of importance only because of the lingering rumors of conspiracy, not because they are valid - we could title them "myths" as well. So, given the levels of nuance, why is the problem not solved as part of the normal negotiation over article titles, so that we have to ban the words all together? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Most certainly not. Any new title would be simply stated.  As I've stated on the 9/11 conspiracy theories' (or somewhere) talk page, things like initial errant estimates of casualties is not a conspiracy theory.  If something is a provably false theory it should be listed in a neutrally titled article, citations for the accusations should be presented, and all facts and citations that debunk the theory/accusation should be presented.  For the article you cite specifically I think it should be merged to the future main 9/11 controversy article or somewhere like that with a huge section if need be.  I have previously proposed the creation of a 9/11 initial reactions article where some info can be merged to (though perhaps needs a better title). zen master    T  03:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zen, I think I need you to be more precise, since the answer you gave is a bit of a dodge. You are saying that the conspiracy theory that "Jews committed 9/11" should be listed in 9/11 controversy (which doesn't currently exist, and seems horribly imprecise - is this really a controversy?), but this is a case where the article on Jews was spun off from an article like 9/11 controversy already, something this policy wouldn't stop from happening again in the future.  So, given that [9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel]] exists (or would be spun-off again), what would you rename it?  And what would you rename the other articles I mentioned?  What is a neutral title for these demonstrably false cases? Help me with some specifics.  --Goodoldpolonius2 03:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, I have some follow up suggestions, General Motors streetcar conspiracy could become General Motors streetcar anti-trust controversy (plus a year date perhaps) though that article's title is slightly outside the scope of this proposal as the problem is mainly when "conspiracy" and "theory" are combined. Though that GM article does mention "conspiracy theory" inside the content a lot and should be cleaned up perhaps. If retitling the 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel article it could become something like 9/11 WTC worker attendance controversy (something simply stated and not pejorative, a simple place to list all facts that justifiably debunk a subject). What do you think?  Separately, I think the 9/11 controversy articles should make some sort of distiction between theories created in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, and citable theories that remain today.  The former are perhaps not worthy of being mentioned if people were eventually corrected on the facts of the situation and no longer propose such theories (would be appropriate in a "9/11 initial reactions" article).  zen master    T  03:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, here is how I think about the issue, if a theory is so dubious as to truly require being labeled a "conspiracy theory", then that article should be deleted through the VfD process because anything that dubious does not belong on an encyclopedia (other than perhaps a brief synopsis mention in a main article somewhere and even then not necessarily). If something is worthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia it should be taken seriously and be presented neutrally (with any debunking coming from facts within the content of the article, not the title). zen master    T  06:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Theories are called "conspiracy theories" because they concern conspiracies, not because they are dubious. If they were absolutely proven, then we'd drop the "theory" and just call them "conspiracies". -Willmcw 06:25, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * You still fail to acknowledge the ambiguity that stems from the multiple definitions of "conspiracy theory", please see Conspiracy theory. "Theory" by itself can also be misunderstood as it has multiple definitions too, one within scientific usage, and one of common usage.  Those definitions for "theory" are often needlessly commingled as well. zen master    T  06:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we going to go through and remove all words and phrases from titles that have secondary or teriary meanings that might be misconstrued by some unidentified reader? I'd hope not. The primary meaning is the one we're using. Oh, and why would General Motors streetcar conspiracy not be on the list? -Willmcw 06:48, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * If there is a better simply stated title, any article, even articles outside the scope of this proposal, should be renamed. As I stated above, the GM article is outside the scope of this article though I did propose a better title General Motors streetcar anti-trust controversy (or whenever it was) or General Motors streetcar anti-trust trial 19XX or something similar. zen master    T  06:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is it outside the scope of this proposal? What makes it different from other conspirarcies? -Willmcw 07:04, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Zen, looking at your proposals, I have to say that I am very uncomfortable with your proposed solution, though I am sympathetic towards your aims. "Controversy" is a bad title for things that have disproven but persist as destructive myth. "CIA-AIDS Controversy" implies that people are actually debating the truth, when, in fact, the idea that the CIA created AIDS (or crack cocaine, or whatever) is false. Similarly, I still think that "worker attendence controversy" is a unsatisfying rename for 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel, it seems like an attempt to dodge the fact that the natural title for the article would be the disturbing "Jews and 9/11 controversy." Which seems to imply, again, that this is a legitimate claim, a controversy, rather than a myth.

The imprecision of language is a problem, and the words conspiracy theory should not be overused, but don't the practical implications of the rename, changing the words "Conspiracy Theory" to "Controversy" cause similar problems, if not worse? Won't it lead to the articles sounding like there is legitimate controversy, when, in fact, there is not? Unfortunately, deleting all non-true claims isn't realistic - some are culturally notable, even thought they are false, and the others serve as useful places to debunk false issues. So, again, can you help me think of a way to title these articles to avoid the Scylla and Caribdis of positive or negative bias? Otherwise, I think this proposal is ultimately not going to be helpful. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are basically saying that some articles need a "conspiracy theory" discrediting caveat in the title because they are so dubious. But that does not make logical sense and is inconsistent.  The title can not possibly or justifiably convey enough context to conclude that something is debunked.  Even worse when a title conveys to the reader that a subject is unworthy of being taken seriously (which may be interpreted as deciding against even reading the article).  "Controversy" is just a proposed alternative title, there are likely many better ones out there.  The key point is to move away from ambiguous language.  Neutrality is the prime directive of Wikipedia.


 * I didn't understand your statement "...it seems like an attempt to dodge the fact that the natural title for the article would be the disturbing 'Jews and 9/11 controversy'", how is the neutral title I proposed "disturbing"? Are people really still claiming such theories today? (see my initial reactions point/article title proposal above)  The title "Dubious allegations of 9/11 complicity" would actually be better than "conspiracy theory" because it's both more neutral and the words chosen are unambiguous at least.  But everyone should ask themselves why are there no articles on wikipedia titled this way other than the "conspiracy theory" articles?  It seems to me like the use of "conspiracy theory" in titles was custom made to circumvent Wikipedia's policy against obviously non neutral titles ("conspiracy theory" is subtly yet profoundly non neutral because of its ambiguously contradictory multiple definitions).


 * There is actually a fair amount of valid, citable evidence for the claim that the CIA/U.S. government was involved in cocaine trafficking (newspaper articles for instance). As I've stated elsewhere, any "debunking" of a theory or allegation that it citable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia should come solely from the content of an article itself, not from its title.  Why *trick* readers into believing something is unworthy of being taken seriously when you can just present facts neutrally and have any beliefs and conclusions be based on logical observations and evidence?  Don't you want readers to actually read the article and learn the details of why a theory or allegation is allegedly "debunked"?  As far as AIDS conspiracy theories goes there is some circumstantial evidence (from scientists no less) to support the allegations contained therein and numerous "conspiracy theory" books have been written on the subject, we should be neutral just covering the books that have been written.  The AIDS conspiracy theories article really should be titled AIDS biowarfare theories, larger scope that the CIA.  zen master    T  17:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As already discussed at talk:AIDS conspiracy theories, not all of the theories concern allegations of biowarfare. Therefore renaming it to AIDS biowarfare theories would be inaccurate. I believe you suggested on that talk page that non-biowarfare theories be moved to some other article to accomodate your preferred title. That reminds me of the stepsisters in Cinderella who cut off their heels to try to fit into the glass slippers. The current title accurately reflects the current material in the article. -Willmcw 17:47, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I did indeed propose on the talk page that any theories which aren't "biowarfare theories" should be merged to fortunately already existing articles. It's not just "my preferred" title, it's also the title that I think is most appropriate for a subset of the content in the AIDS conspiracy theories article. zen master    T  18:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zen, as you yourself are arguing, titles imply legitimacy or illegimacy of topics. There is a big logical flaw in your argument, however, which is that articles exist about false topics because the fact that some people believe/believed the false topic is itself notable.  It is not a violation of NPOV to make it clear that claims that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 or that the world is flat ar false, but that people believe these things anyway -- the very essence of the meaning of conspiracy theory.  It is not a violation of NPOV to call some claims false, and there will always be "circumstantial evidence" of any alleged conspiracy, but they don't all need to be treated as equally valid.  Besides, titles are subject to the same community processes as anything else, which is why some articles mention conspiracy theory in the titles and others don't. Whether Jews caused 9/11 is not a "controversy" it is a myth, and the article title can reflect that.  So can the article on AIDS actually being caused by poisoning, which is demonstrably false, and a myth that is killing many people thanks to policymakers like Thabo Mbeki who buy into it.  NPOV does not involve making no judgements on ideas that are false.  There are always language-games in any article title, and banning the use of the word conspiracy theory does not eliminate them.  --Goodoldpolonius2 17:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not actually arguing for that, I am stating that to point out inconsistency. Here is the logical flow for you: if an allegation or theory is factually citable then it should be included in Wikipedia, else it should be deleted through VfD.  If something is included in Wikipedia it should be presented neutrally, even if the majority of evidence is against it.  To present something neutrally requires the title being neutral. Does that clear it up for you?


 * Is the flat earth article you cite *titled* as "Dubious flat Earth theories"? I don't think so, any and all indication of dubiousness is within the content of the article, not in its title. The key points are to avoid language that is ambiguous and avoid language that *tricks* people into not actually thinking about the issue or taking it seriously.  If something is factually debunkable it should be debunked with facts, not with word games.  zen master    T  18:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zen, I appreciate what you are getting at, but I disagree, neutral titles are required for articles where the NPOV is that the article expresses either a fact, or pros and cons of a legitimately disputed idea. In the case of a false belief, NPOV allows the belief to be stated as false, not all knowledge in Wikipedia needs to be relative.  "Zeus (myth)" is an acceptable title, so should "Myth of AIDS Caused by Poison" or "AIDS Poisoning Conspiracy Theory," NPOV doesn't require us to treat all assertions as equally credible.  Your alternate titles have substituted postive support (as in "Missing Jews at World Trade Center Controversy" which implies legitimate debate over the topic) for negative support ("Conspiracy Theories Involving Jews at the WTC").  The duty of an NPOV encyclopedia is to be neutral on viewpoints, not on facts.  "Conspiracy theory" should not be used lightly in a description, but there are some titles where alternate approaches are much, much worse. After hearing your argument, I am going to vote against your proposal, and would urge others to do the same.  --Goodoldpolonius2 19:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Goodoldpolonius2, I am basically arguing that not everything you consider to be a false belief is so, and even if something is false it still should be presented neutrally. Even if the goal is to present a false theory as factually being false why use ambiguous language? Why not just state "this theory is false" rather than state "this theory is unworthy of being taken seriously"? To answer my own question: if an article were to state directly that a controversial subject is false people would see that obvious neutrality violation and they would fix the title immediately. So "conspiracy theory" is chosen precisely because it can slip under the neutrality radar thanks to its ambiguity. It seems to me, that the pro "conspiracy theory" folks would prefer that unknowledgeable third parties not even read "conspiracy theory" designated articles and simply believe (without even thinking about the issue) that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously. The goal with using "conspiracy theory" in a title seems to be to appeal to a reader's "gut reaction" about the quality of the subject, as in "oh hmmm, if this subject is unworthy of being taken seriously then why should I spend the time and effort to take it seriously?". Appealing to gut reaction thoughts is very powerful.

Any "Zeus (myth)" title would be technically wrong and should be retitled, but that error likely would happen within the context of needing disambiguation. "Zeus (God)" or something better would be more appropriate. To be consistent do you support the retitling of Creationism as Creationism (myth)??? NPOV does in fact require us to treat all factually citable assertions as equal. Titles should be neither positive nor negative. The fact is people have alleged various 9/11 conspiracy theories, are you arguing that this fact and the theories themselves should be presented non neutrally? When creating an article on a "dubious" subject the logic flow should be: Is this allegation/theory citable? check. Did I present this allegation/theory neutrally? check. Did I list any and all couter facts and counter evidence that debunk the allegation/theory inside the article? check. At this point you can conclude that the dubious subject is indeed debunked, but the title is at the first stage of the process and it can not justifiably include conclusions because any "debunking" or determination of "dubiousness" is a multi step process. zen master   T  20:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zen, of course not all beliefs that I think are untrue are. But the key is your statement "NPOV does in fact require us to treat all factually citable assertions as equal."  Factually citable is not a bright line, it is a fuzzy one.  No credible sources believe that Israel planned the WTC bombing or that AIDS is actually caused by a mass poisoning campaign, but some people still believe it.  Those people are not "factually citable" by any reasonable standard, and what they propose is a classic version of conspiracy theory, with no credible support.  Articles on these topics should not focus on the claims, which are false, but on the fact that some people believe them and the implications of that.  Thus, titling them as "conspiracy theories" is very NPOV, since that is the context of the discussion.  In any case, there are elaborate NPOV checks and balances in Wikipedia.  Enough believers on the site obviously exist to keep "Chemtrails" from "Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory" -- so be it.  Why not continue to allow this federal system to continue?  And, again, what would you rename the AIDS poisoning conspiracy article and the Jews caused 9/11 article?  I have stated why "controversy" is at least as bad as "conspiracy theory" because it implies that there is factual debate on these topics.  --Goodoldpolonius2 20:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's the other way arould, polonius; you got your greater than / less than reversed. 20:54, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Responding to Goodoldpolonius2, there is no such thing as a "classic conspiracy theory" as that phrase is 100% ambiguous. Either something is literally a theory of people conspiring or it is literally a dubious theory. Which of the definitions did you mean in what context? If something is literally a theory of people conspiring then using "conspiracy theory" would be prejudicial. If something is a dubious theory any dubiousness should be stated directly to avoid confusion with the literal definition of "conspiracy theory". Being labeled a "conspiracy theory" is 100 times worse than being labeled "dubious" because the former conveys that a subject should not be taken seriously. "conspiracy theory" doesn't merely describe a subject, it hints at a detrimental course of action to take when analyzing that subject. "controversy" does not imply a valid debate, it just means the existence of debate. Using "conspiracy theory" is equivalent to sweeping citable allegations under the rug, sure people allege dubious things all the time but it is a fact they alleged it. If someone repeatedly alleges dubious things that fact can be noted in any future article. But the key point is that using "conspiracy theory" does not neutrally present the existence of an allegation or theory, any conclusion on the quality of that theory is the next step (inside the content of the article). zen master   T  21:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Goodoldpolonius2 that "controversy" implies that serious people disagree, and should not be used in cases where nobody credible believes in the unconventional theory.


 * However, I agree with zen master that "conspiracy theory" is problematic. (On the other hand, if the alternative to "conspiracy theory" is deletion, I'll take "conspiracy theory"). Mirror Vax 10:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One other point. If a "conspiracy theory" contradicts hard facts, then it's not a violation of neutrality to flatly assert that it is wrong. Mirror Vax 10:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw's tangential proposal
In my opinion Willmcw is damaging the quality of the proposal page by adding a section which I do not believe is relevant to the "conspiracy theory" title issue but I will let other users interpret it for themsleves here. Willmcw does not support the rename option so why is he coming up with rename-esque proposals? zen master   T  07:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is offered as a compromise solution. I added it because apparently it is the word "theory" which makes the term "conspiracy theory" so dubious. -Willmcw 07:20, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The word theory is confusing because it has multiple definitions but neither of the definitions are negative. Whereas "conspiracy theory's" secondary definition has negative connotations.  So now do you see why your proposal is not relevant?  The issue is one of removing only the phrases that have at least one negative or non-neutral definition, "theory" by itself does not fit this criteria. zen master    T  07:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. For example, the "theory of evolution" is attacked on the basis that it is "only a theory". Furthermore, it has a sixth definition:
 * An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
 * It is obviously prejudicial for us to assert that a particular explanation is just a conjecture. If the compromise solution doen't get any support in a day or two, I'll voluntarily withdraw it. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:29, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * That is not a negative connotation. The status of whether a word is attacked or not is irrelvant to its definition(s).  zen master    T  07:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep proposal
I've added my signature to the keep proposal. If any of the other keep supporters want to edit the keep summary I added, or expand it, please feel free. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we move any voting to the talk page please? zen master   T  00:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Policy vs consensus
Can we clarify that this proposal is simply an effort to gain consensus on whether to alter the current titles of these listed articles, and is not an attempt to create a policy which bans the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in any article title, ever? If it is a proposed policy, then we amy need to handle it differently. -Willmcw 02:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * How should we handle it differently? If the listed articles are renamed there will be no "conspiracy theory" articles on Wikipedia left I believe, and I doubt many more will be created.  Do you foresee the need to create many "conspiracy theory" titled articles in the future? zen master    T  02:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We would need to publicize it more widely than this, probably on the mailing list, village pump etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:02, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you don't plan to do that because you don't consider this a policy debate? zen master   T  03:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't a policy debate, just an attempt to reach consensus regarding the pages under discussion, so no, I wasn't planning on doing that. There's a page somewhere on how to make policy. If I have time later, I'll take a look for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, a simple example is that this is listed on the RfC as a title dispute rather than as a proposed policy. As for the future applications, four years ago we didn't expect there would be a need for articles discussing "9/11 conspiracy theories". -Willmcw 03:18, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the word policy from below to avoid that confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:59, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Voting (rename vs keep as is)

 * Please see Conspiracy theory for the proposal, arguments and counterarguments.

Voting will end June 1, 2005.

The raw votes of the balloting were:
 * Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles: 12
 * Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is: 32
 * Remove the word "theory" from all article titles: 1
 * Decide on a case-by-case basis: 12


 * For the detailed vote on the issue, see Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2

Replace conspiracy theory with "Unofficial Account) or a similar term
In the mainstream media some would say: "Unofficial accounts allege that:.....)or say Unofficial claims propose or suggest that JFK was assasinated because.................. I'm open for simmilar terms that would replace the term Conspiracy theory --The Brain 05:40, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently there is a "simply stated" title policy for all titles except the "conspiracy theory" titles. I think we should use that as a guide when renaming.   Much more simple and neutral to just title that article as "JFK assassination controversy" or theories could work too. zen master    T  05:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How come additional titles keep getting added after the bvoting has started? This is a moving target. -Willmcw 06:03, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have found more titles with "conspiracy theory" in them. The original scope of the proposal only affecting articles titled with "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy claims" and "misinformation and rumor" has not changed.  If you are truly concerned you can poll everyone voting rename to make certain they are aware.  zen master    T  06:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the added articles dramatically increase the scope of this discussion. And you do realize that even if your proposal passes and the articles are renamed, it would not be binding on future editors. If the consensus among editors on the Columbine conspiracy theories article, for example, later decide that they like that title, they'd be entitled to retitle it back. This all seems like an unnecessary effort which distracts editors from working on articles. -Willmcw 07:02, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * You know what? I've noticed a pattern. Whenever someone disagrees with you, or takes an action that you feel is unwarranted, that person's act or expression of an opinion becomes something that will "distract editors from working on articles." Yet your own actions, posts and opinions apparently never distract anyone in this way. Have you found an interesting and creative way to deflect arguments you don't favor? Or is there some peculiar pleasure you derive from telling people to get back to work? BrandonYusufToropov 13:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to talk about writing an encyclopedia. One editor has called this matter a "black hole for editors' time and energy". -Willmcw 17:04, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why then are there talk pages? Can we use them to talk to each other some of the time, in your view? If so, when? Do we have to check with you first?
 * Re: Some unnamed editor who considers the discussion a "black hole, etc." -- who's making him participate? Who's making you participate? If you think it's a waste of your time, disengage.
 * If people are concerned about whether WP titles should draw partisan conclusions before the reader gets to the text, that's their business. As is their time allocation with regard to engaging in the discussion.
 * That this particular pattern of paternalistic moralizing on your part just "happens" to perpetuate the (biased) status quo, in which you are apparently heavily invested, seems to me not completely coincidental.
 * If you are, even now, considering repeating to me some variation of this pattern of paternalistic moralizing ... couldn't you really be using that time to work on another article? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) BrandonYusufToropov 20:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, I guess that doing nothing is biased towards the status quo, and vice versa. It's related to a phenomenon known as "inertia". Talk pages are here to allow discussions that resolve editorial questions and disputes, and that work towards building consensus agreement. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * How was the scope increased? All the listed articles are "conspiracy theory", "misinformation and rumor" and "conspiracy claims", any more that fit that scope should be added to the list.  The phrase "conspiracy theory" in the future will hopefully be discouraged in titles because it has been determined to be POV.  We should indeed post on all those articles' talk pages so all those editors are also aware of this.  Did you want to do that? zen master    T  07:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a major difference between an "unofficial account" and a "conspiracy theory," although some reports may be both.
 * A conspiracy theory is a founded or unfounded evaluation of a situation that proposes that there was a conspiracy ("a plot among two or more persons") to commit an act or cover it up, or both. "Conspiracy theory" almost always implies a subjective view of known and guessed at facts of which the theorist has no personal knowledge.
 * An "unofficial account" implies a first-hand observation of events that are not acknowledged or at variance with the official or accepted account of the same events. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In some cases, the official account is a conspiracy theory. In most cases, it then ceases to be a "theory". Few would argue the the existence of the Enron energy conspiracy is a myth, though I believe that criminal investigators and prosecutors talk about the "theory" of a crime."  But what do we mean by official? The official policy of the government of South Africa is that AIDS was accidentally caused by (white-made) vaccines, then intentionally that covered up. 1  During the Cold War either side alleged a number of conspiracies by opposing forces, in some cases with mutually exclusive versions. Which is official? Both?  Cheers, -Willmcw 09:28, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree with that. "Conspriacy theory" has a specific usage. If an official investigation has a theory about a conspiracy, that is not a "conspiracy theory." It's kind of like if you have a person whose last name is "Pope" and he is of the Roman Catholic religion, we do not refer to him as a "Roman Catholic Pope." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Although he would be a Discordian Pope... Barno 19:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Best alternative to "conspiracy theory" is "unsubstantiated theory"
The most accurate, non POV, synonym to "conspiracy theory" is "unsubstantiated theory" (just came up with it). An encyclopedia should convey exactly that a seemingly dubious theory or allegation may be true but it currently has no facts that support it and/or it has not achieved mainstream acceptance. Though, would titling an article with "unsubstantiated theory" be NPOV itself? answer: no. See points above about how the title should present the existence of an citable allegation or theory neutrally (so a theory/allegation/subject can be "debunked" by factual content in the article, not by word games in the title). zen master   T  22:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "Unsubstantiated theory" doesn't mean the same thing as "conspiracy theory". And "Unsubstantiated theory" is simply a theory which hasn't been substantiated for any number of reasons, including lack of time, funds, interest, ability, etc.  A "conspiracy theory" is a theory of events which go against accepted norms, which allege secret conspiracies, and which are impossible to disprove in the minds of their holders regardless of the evidence. Jayjg (talk)  22:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing is objectively a conspiracy theory given its ambiguous definition. A theory can seem dubious, a theory can seem outlandish or non mainstream, but an encyclopedia must deal exclusively with facts.   If something is disprovable with facts, then the article should include those facts, but the key point is a theory or allegation is not "disproved" merely because a title uses word games that trick readers into not taking a subject seriously.  I am ok with many "conspiracy theory" titled articles concluding in the content that "this subject is dubious" etc but I am not ok with POV titles that put the cart before the horse.  zen master    T  22:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course there are lots of things objectively identified as conspiracy theories, since the definition isn't particularly ambiguous. But now you're just re-hashing the old arguments; my point was that "unsubstantiated theory" doesn't at all mean "conspiracy theory", and therefore one is not a good substitute for the other. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  22:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is unencyclopedic to use conspiracy theory to describe another, separate subject in a title. My point is unsubstantiated theory is the closest to conspiracy theory without violating NPOV. zen master    T  23:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But what if the theory has some substantiation? If a theory truly is "unsubstantiated", then the article would be about a sentence long: "there is a theory that such-and-such. end of story." Kevin Baastalk: new 23:27, 2005 May 19 (UTC)


 * That is my point, if a theory has substance it DEFINITELY shouldn't be labeled a conspiracy theory then. zen master    T  23:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Procedure?
When does the voting end? I think that zen master did a great job in making his arguments, but it seems clear that the vast majority of voters are against any change, and that we are seeing old discussions recycling. When does this become a closed issue? --Goodoldpolonius2 22:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe we should advertise it more, since as of 2 days ago it is became a {proposed} policy. My arguments are either correct, or they are not, it's not about them being presented good.  We should leave the voting open until the end of the month perhaps.  zen master    T  23:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zen, the quality of your arguments do matter -- a lame attempt would have made this a waste of time, but I think this was a real discussion. Now, I don't think you are correct because there exists a real catagory of things called conspiracy theories AND because no one has come up with a good way to rename the relevant articles.  But arguments are not black and white, correct or not; you demonstrated that there is a problem with some conspiracy titles, but, from my perspective, the cure is worse than the disease. Anyhow, the end of the month seems fine, but it is unlikely that you will get a 2/3 majority in favor at this stage.  --Goodoldpolonius2 00:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. But what is the cure that you believe is worse than the disease? I haven't proposed a specific cure, all my talk page suggestions were just possible suggestions.  The vote is determining whether "conspiracy theory" is neutral enough for use in a title.  The proposal simply states we should use the simply stated title policy as a guide when renaming (I can recuse myself from doing any renaming or retitling if this proposal passes).  I state in the proposal that use of "conspiracy theory" in titles should be discouraged simply because at best the phrase is ambiguous, at worse it is POV.  Just because we can't think of better titles off the top of our head doesn't mean we should aquiesce to the POV of "conspiracy theory".  zen master    T  00:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zen, we NEED to think of better titles first. This is a proposal without an alternative.  It is like stating that the US healthcare system is a problem, and asking us to abolish the healthcare system for a new system to be decided later.  "Conspiracy theory" is not an optimal title, I agree.  So what is a good replacement?  The alternatives are all either dodging the question ("Unofficial accounts that HIV does not cause AIDS") or give credence to bad ideas ("Alternative views that the Jews caused 9/11").  This is the big objection many people have to your proposal, not that conspiracy theory does not reflect some sort of POV, but that the alternatives are even more POV.  I won't leap until you tell me where I am going to land.  --Goodoldpolonius2 00:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've suggested an alternative, see my vote above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:43, May 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * This proposal came about because all my attempts to fix "conspiracy theory" titled articles were reverted, see Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories and Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories among others. If "conspiracy theory" is declared not neutral then every one will put their heads together to come up with a better title, at that point "conspiracy theory" would no longer be considered a fall back position. Has anyone considered the possibility someone is creating 9/11 Israeli involvement allegations for even more sinester POV (reverse psychology POV among other possibilities)?  We should present everything neutrally to avoid all possible flavors of POV.  The flat earth theory article is titled Flat Earth, I am 100% ok with statements inside an article that factually and citable conclude dubiousness or even falseness about a subject, but that is not appropriate in a title, and it's certainly not appropriate for a title to discourage an objective analysis of a subject.  zen master    T  00:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Dante- but "proported" is also a loaded word, and, again, worse than the orginal (in my view). People at least understand the meaning of "conspiracy theory" -- it is in common usage, and people are happy to talk about whether or not they believe the "Kennedy conspiracy theory" or whatever. Purported has the connotation of making the following words sound false -- a "purported consipracy theory" is something that you do not believe is a conspiracy theory, but that The Man is trying to tell you is one. Even the definition hints at problems. Purported is defined as "commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds" -- the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS is not commonly accepted as true (hopefully). I think we are trading a phrase with some POV problems for a new phrase that also has POV issues, but has no common usage.


 * No one is suggesting "purported conspiracy theory". I am suggesting "Bush family conspiracy theory" be switched to "Purported Bush family conspiracy". Purported does not have the connotation of making what follows it sound false, it makes it sound unproven, which is what these "theories" are. "Supposed" is the word that would imply falsehood. I think we all agree "Supposed Bush family conspiracy is inappropriate. Would you prefer "alleged" or "suggested"? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:30, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Zen- I think the editors of the individual articles have the right to have some say as to titles. I understand their choices bother you, heck, they often bother me, but that doesn't mean that we should esclate to making a policy to cure what you see as a problem, since...

Any title in this area will be POV, because these are inherently POV articles. Either you believe the scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS, or you scrounge for proof and try to argue that it doesn't, the second is certainly an extreme POV. Maybe sometimes conspiracy theorists are right, but mostly they are not. So, any title takes a stand -- do you legitimitize the theory by calling it an "alternative theory" or do you cast doubt on it with a "conspiracy theory" title. I say leave the tools in the hands of the editors for the article, since no blanket statement makes more sense. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The titles of articles in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia should not "cast doubt", that should be reserved for the actual content of articles. People do not actually understand the duplicitous meanings of "conspiracy theory".  An allegedly neutral encyclopedia should have a higher standard than "common usage".  Any theory or allegation should be judged by the quantity and quality of factual, citable evidence rather than by subtle word games. zen master    T  03:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your notion of neutrality does not match the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy makes it clear that Wikipedia editors have a duty to the reader to distinguish majority, minority, and extreme minority positions.  Calling conspiracy theories "conspiracy theories" is, in part, a reflection of that. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  19:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zen, word games exist in all titles, it is naive to think otherwise.  Look at the debates over the titles for articles like Islamofacism to see how these debates get very heated over the subtlties of particular words.  As for your argument, I could just as easily write that neutral encyclopedias should not, in their titles, "give support" to factually incorrect concepts, that should be done in the articles.  NPOV is a razor's edge.  A conspiracy theory is a real label, and, like all labels, it is loaded with meaning.  No one was able to propose a less loaded label that works for me and the majority of the people.  You win the point that conspiracy theory is loaded. You don't have an alternative ready that is more convincing and does not legitimize theories that are just plain incorrect.  Thus, the current status of the vote. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As is the case here, there is little if any debate. What you call heated, I call POV fortification.  I agree about your other point, but as I've said before, if something is so dubious as to require the discrediting "conspiracy theory" in its title then it should be deleted through the VfD process. But if an article is worthy of an encyclopedia it must be presented neutrally, especially the existence of it.   "conspiracy theory" is a needlessly ambiguous label especially considering many simply stated alternatives already exist.  The current vote reflects the desire by some to maintain the status quo use of "conspiracy theory" as a POV device.  Coming up with better titles for all the articles is the next step after "conspiracy theory" is declared not neutral enough.   Here is my proposal for your specific article concern: allegations of Jews and Israeli involvement in 9/11 i.e. "conspiracy theories" should be merged into a more general or more main neutrally titled 9/11 article.  That section can conclude that the allegations are dubious at best.  You are non neutrally presenting undisputed facts by including them as being part of a "conspiracy theory".  If something is provably false or unsubstantiated we should state that directly, rather than state unencyclopedically "this subject is unworthy of being taken seriously", even if the subject is a highly controversial one.  Neutrality should be unaffected by the level of controversy or appearance of dubiousness surrounding a subject.  Don't you want people to really think and learn all the specific facts on why a particular theory is dubious, unsubstantiated or provably false, rather than subtly be discouraged from even reading the article?  zen master    T  06:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Potentially POV
FYI: In his most recent weekly usage column in the New York Times, William Safire contends that "ism" is an often a derogatory usage. "On Language Isms and Phobias" May 15, 2005
 * Adding ist or ism to a word usually colors it negatively, as can be seen in secularist.


 * Therapists (a neutral term -- indeed, masseurs like to upgrade their job description to massage therapist) won't like therapism, which is intended to be disparaging.


 * Let the listener or reader beware: -ist and -phobe, more often than not these days, are suffixes tacked on to words to turn them into fierce derogations.

This seems like a comparable issue. -Willmcw 08:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * William Safire vacillates between being incredibly insightful and an absolute putz. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:47, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * How do "Judaism" and "Zionism" fit in with that notion? :-O Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

When does the vote end?
Is there any ending point for this vote? It's been open for 20 days, which seems like plenty of time. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * It only became a proposed policy recently, there was an agreement amongst a few folks here on the talk page to keep the voting open until June 1st. zen master   T  19:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see that discussion, but June 1 is fine. -Willmcw 21:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

A possible solution
I changed AIDS conspiracy theories to Alternative theories about the origin of AIDS. Unfortunately, some POV pusher decided to change it back. thoughts? Revolución 01:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe they aren't the POV pusher in this situation. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, you seem to be arguing we should title and present alternative AIDS origin theories pejoratively, why? How is titling the article "alternative theories" about the origins AIDS POV pushing? If the theories are of a dubious nature then why not let the article conclude that factually and scientifically, rather than taint all conclusions and implied conclusions because of the non neutral method of presentation? Either someone supports neutral language and neutral presentation or they want to trick third parties with presumption inducing language. All language trickery is wrong (unscientific, non neutral), regardless of the multiple/competing POVs that use it. zen master T 02:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I support Zen-master on this issue --Striver 08:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's time for a new vote on this proposal. zen master T 13:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for "conspiracy theory"
FYI, there is a proposal to require an article state exactly who is counter claiming/pointing out that an allegation is a "conspiracy theory" over on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. zen master T 16:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That proposal has now moved back here, anyone care to discuss it? zen master T 04:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but didn't we just vote overwhelmingly to keep using the term a couple months ago? Has anything changed since then? --Goodoldpolonius2 04:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles: 12
 * Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is: 32
 * Remove the word "theory" from all article titles: 1
 * Decide on a case-by-case basis: 12


 * Awww, thank you for not being offensive, for a second I was worried if you'd be, so soothing are your kind words, it sets my mind at ease (is the sarcasm too thick?). You must have quickly noticed a post to this talk page in your watch list and algorithmically decided to go with the same simple non neutral status quo, but a random passerby wouldn't take the time to recount up all the old votes unless they desired to push POV.... Just in case it matters and you are for real (by any definition of real), there is new evidence that the phrase "conspiracy theory" isn't neutral and separately a new discussion sprung to life and initially/seemingly made a tiny bit of progress towards true consensus over on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. Basically there is a proposal to require citations or caveats about who is counter claiming/pointing out that a theory is a "conspiracy theory", what do you think about that idea specifically? Though, given the drop off of discussion there and the recent denial of any support for fixing "conspiracy theory" in titles I bet the propaganda gods aren't currently in the mood for any changes. zen master T 04:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yowza, I'll back slowly away. I just saw a new post to an old talk page on my watchlist and checked it out, and was confused why it was re-opened. Scrolling back a short distance resulted in the vote count, which I copied with the magic of control-c and control-v, not a lot of time involved.  Thanks for the insanely hostile greeting, though. You don't want me here, I don't need to be here, but what a nice way to start discussion. Best of luck in your future endeavors, and, seriously, you might want to chill out a bit. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So you don't want to fix neutrality problems with wikipedia? zen master T 04:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

...there is new evidence that the phrase "conspiracy theory" isn't neutral... New evidence? What new evidence? -Willmcw 05:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, that actually got your attention, consider me surprised. Since you took the bait and because this amuses me I will respond. The new evidence is the recently established fact that Slim's original Conspiracy theory argument in support of "conspiracy theory" being neutral has been refuted. So either "conspiracy theory" is not neutral or someone needs to come up with a new, logical argument in defense of it -- any takers or should we instead just restart the caveat/citation proposal discussion from words to avoid here? I am game for either. As a separate question, I have been wondering if "conspiracy theory" should be categorized as an offensive or defensive "thought police" capability? I am leaning towards offensive which is why I am still worried and make a big deal about this issue. How would you categorize it? As a side note, I actually assume good faith about the real world turning out ok, eventually, despite my wiki criticism. zen master T 06:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you give us the "diff" in which this refutation occurred? Thanks, -Willmcw 14:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I can do better, I can recreate the argument here. Slim's claimed prescriptive motivation for "conspiracy theory" is refuted because the diagnosis is wrong.  Concerns over the lack of neutrality of "conspiracy theory" trump everything else. zen master T 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. So the "new evidence" appeared and "refutation" occured in your mind, then. Glad to see that you still agree with yourself. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * By what basis are you arguing the phrase "conspiracy theory" is neutral? Don't you care that someone is making an in good faith lack of neutrality complaint against wikipedia? zen master T 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If someone were actually doing that, I would indeed be concerned. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But for your position to be true you have to have a logical argument why "conspiracy theory" is neutral, and you don't. zen master T 16:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For your position to be true, you would have to have to be raising some sort of new concerns about the phrase, rather than continuously trolling these pages with the same arguments you have been making for months, and which have been rejected by consensus. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Since when did "old" concerns somehow automatically become invalid? Your understanding of the word "consensus" is inaccurate. We can use different and alternative words and phrases that will get the same point across as "conspiracy theory" but do it in a fair and encyclopedic way. zen master T 17:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Points that may perhaps have been overlooked

 * The vote that took place about "conspiracy theory" a couple of months ago had to do with titles, not usage of the term within WP articles.


 * People are falling all over themselves in these discussions to avoid acknowledging the clear, and now dominant, pejorative content of the term ...


 * ...and to turn a blind eye to subjects like whether (initially) rigorous sociological, technical, theological, or academic terms ever change in their primary meaning by means of circulation in the general public. For instance: I am constantly being hit over the head about how the word jihad has in fact changed in its "practical" meaning among English speakers in recent years, thanks to the Western media's (mis)usage of it. For some reason this process of semantic shift is apparently worthy of unchallenged acceptance when it solidifies oversimplifications that demean and slander the beliefs of approximately one billion people. When it comes to "conspiracy theory," though, what matters is how people used the term forty years ago.


 * This analysis of the term features a memorable opening that reinforces the points I am trying to engage here.

I refuse to apologize for rejecting the (simplistic, to my mind) formulation, "It's a theory, it's about a conspiracy, so what the #@$%^ is it if it's not a conspiracy theory?" By the same logic, would we defend the usage of "son of a bitch" on the grounds that "Jack is a son, his mother has at least occasionally been a bitch, so what the #$&* is Jack if he's not a son of a bitch?" BrandonYusufToropov 20:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good points, one more: titles are where "conspiracy theory's" neutrality abuse is the most prevalent currently. zen master T 20:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

changing a proposal that has been voted on
Don't. -Willmcw 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * so should I create a new page for a re-submitted proposal? Though where in the rules is there a prohibition against clarifying a proposal for an eventual re-vote on the policy?  Would Conspiracy theory 2 be ok? zen master T 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Either a new page or a new section of this page. -Willmcw 03:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I will change it to "version 2.0 of the proposal", would that be ok? zen master T 03:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)